Hi Glenn,
I will respond to some of your points because they are relevant to my
contributions in this thread. At the end of this email I also comment on
a survey I made today of six stations in order to evaluate the quality
of the API data.
As far as I can tell from my survey, the station names
Hi Yves,
> ref=76
> name="Place Van Meenen - Van Meenenplein"
> name:fr="Place Van Meenen"
> name:nl="Van Meenenplein"
> addr:street="Place Maurice Van Meenen - Maurice Van Meenenplein"
> addr:housenumber="35-39"
>
Sounds like an interesting challenge. I've done a similar thing with
Velo in
Hello again,
Sorry for taking so much time after my last message. I guess I can now
share a concrete proposal for name tag changes to continue the
discussion.
I have put everything in a few different formats in the following
repository:
https://github.com/cedb12/villo-names
My main
Hello Yves,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I agree with you on the problem of importing locations in bulk. Still, I
think it is safe to use the API data to clean up the names and reference
numbers of the stations we have already mapped.
As far as I know, the API "name" values match
I'm not sure whether it is a good idea to "copy" the address of a
house to another object, that does not really have that address.
As the original address information is "face 35-39 / tegenover 35-39",
the bicycle rental place should not have addr:housenumber=35-39 imho
m.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017
Hello,
In the past weeks I have also wanted to do some cleanup on Villo! stations and
it’s a fact that there still quite a lot of work to be done.
Just a few thoughts about the idea of bulk data imports because this is what
gave us really "ugly" nodes sometimes.
The name itself is a problem
Hello all,
Lately I have been looking at the Villo! dataset from the JCDecaux API
at [1], which is released under the Etalab Open License (see also [2]).
I want to consult the community about the use of this data to improve
the tagging of the stations we have already mapped. I would also like to
